Sunday, November 13, 2016

Nigerian negresses will henceforth define all words in the English language. You can throw out your dictionaries now.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has no time for white men who want to redefine what racism is. The Nigerian feminist author appeared on BBC Newsnight on Friday with R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., founder and editor-in-chief of the conservative magazine The American Spectator.

“Thats not true, he hasn’t been racist,” Tyrell said, but Adichie wasn’t having it.

“I’m sorry, but as a white man, you don’t get to define what racism is, you really don’t,” she said. “You don’t get to sit there and say he hasn’t been racist when objectively he has.”

Redefine? The negress obviously has no idea what the white man's definition has been for decades. But the amazing thing is that she's not even the most clueless one there. You simply must watch the video, as when Tyrell asks the woman from the BBC why the media always focuses on the KKK instead of the Knights of Columbus, her response simply has to be seen to be believed.

Now remember, these are the people who consider themselves to be the intellectual elite. Never forget this whenever you're dealing with the media. They are uneducated midwits with less intellectual curiosity than the average alley cat.

I was going to say that in fact white men do get to define what "racism" means because we are speaking a language of whites. Nigerians get to define the meaning of the word in their own tongue.

Origins of the word "racism":

"The History and Dictionary Meaning of racism

Racism appears to be a word of recent origin, with no citations currently known that would suggest the word was in use prior to the early 20th century. But the fact that the word is fairly new does not prove that the concept of racism did not exist in the distant past. "

Trump saying what he did about the Mexican judge was racist, but, the Nigerian saying that a white man doesn't get to participate in unpacking the definition of racism because he's a Fucking White Male isn't racist.

No, no, NO! Seriously, how stubbornly stupid are you? Why don't you just go right to "Democrats are the REAL racists"?

I'm getting very tired of losers who INSIST on responding to rhetoric with dialectic. If you wouldn't reply in Chinese to someone speaking English, don't use dialectic, logic, reason, or whatever label you need to understand the concept to those speaking rhetoric.

Not to answer rhetoric with dialectic, but be careful with the pedophile accusation. Calling a private figure a pedophile constitutes defamation per se in many jurisdictions, and under the law is more actionable than the more subjective racism charge.

The most flagrant demonstration of intellectual decay and subversion demoed in this video is that all -isms, being ideological in origin, are open to interpretation: There is nothing Absolute about them. This leftist monopoly on -isms, -phobias and -ists (oh my) only has the power one allows it to have. Ignoring them altogether, as if they are entirely made up (since, by and large, they are as subjective interpretations of phenomena) causes immediate intellectual and verbal constipation in Leftists. They are incapable of processing a non-reaction to them.

Emmett is probably too much a gentleman, but I would have said, "what the fuck! Are you kidding me? Are you both so stupid to not know who the KofC is? Better call the Pope and tell him he is running a terrorist organization."

Thing is - I don't find anything stated by the MSM host or the Negress expert on racism unusual. In fact, i find it pedestrian and mainstream. What is interesting is that anyone who is touting "conservative values" or whom is defending Trump would bother to even appear on one of these programs and thus give it legs. Even if a Trump supporter was not mobbed in typical fashion by the Prozi host and the SJW being debated, the media has the editorial final word. A win likely ends up on the proverbial cutting room floor. In this venue, SJWs almost always "win," with the help of the host.

This video just reinforces why the MSM is dying. Tyrell and his ilk should have learned by now. Starve the best - don't play the game.

If I was asked about the first black president being followed by a president whose candidacy was endorsed by the KKK, my first instinct would be to say "Good." Not because I support the KKK, but because that'd mean the KKK's enemies lost, and those are my enemies, too, for the most part.

Oh, wait. It wasn't? Let me crawl back in my hole.I don't know, is it relevant that the KKK was formed to fight against the destruction of white civiliaztion by racist Republican carpetbaggers and their negro pets?

I agree with Vox that engaging rhetoric with dialectic is a special, limited-time flavor of retarded™, but there is certainly a place for logic when debating a Leftist (c.f. my example, #22, above). However, when those opportunities present themselves, stab with them then immediately re-frame the dynamic by pressing what you want, why you want it and how it benefits your target audience; and - whenever possible - the greatest good for the greatest number. Rinse, repeat, redpill.

The definition of racism:1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

1. Yes, I believe there are differences among the races. This implies superior and inferior qualities. There is no right to dominate, but it would arise naturally as a result of superiority/inferiority.

2. Yes, the government should follow an immigration policy based on such a doctrine.

3. There is no hatred, but there is intolerance, since I do not tolerate disproportionately displacing my people with black Africans and Arabs.

So I'm a racist. Why is this a problem? I accept their frame. So what? What does that change?

I refuse to alter my language in response to non-White demands. I've gotten all sorts of comments posted at various locales as long as I don't use specific slang or curse words. Negro, Mulatto, Oriental, niggardly, etc. The English language is rich and precise. Own it. Use it proudly.

God save us from such misinformation, lies and distortions, these people are dangerously stupid (dys-elites).

The Reality is the Media is Failed and Rejected and the KKK is not really the issue here. The issue is the Media's Left Wing narratives all failed and they will not learn from or understand or have any sense of agency about their stupidity plus this matter of their credentialism.

Per the video, yes, its true, we cannot speak because someone is white or something. Calling the middle class and others Deplorables was the best thing EVER HRC did.

54 Tom K, correct, they fail to understand Dia as they are all about emotionalism and ID potitics or whatever - I still cannot believe protests are still taking place after the election. I sort of expected it but I'm amused at more MPAI (not that I'm smart though.)

@23-I don't think that poster has a dialectic vs. rhetoric problem. They probably just think that's good rhetoric. Which it isn't, but a truncated form could be. I don't know how to phrase it, exactly, though.

Granted, that IS similar to Dems R the real racists, which also doesn't fail for any dialectic versus rhetoric reason, but because it just doesn't work rhetorically.

Racism means something else to the dictionary, or its primary definition does. I sympathize with your understanding, however, because defining "racism" is a shell game, however. It is in the interests of the ruling class to be able to switch back and forth between different definitions, so as to denigrate perfectly rational, harmless, and common sensical beliefs.

There's your definition, which we might just call Noticing Race. That's a subdefinition. The main definition is prejudice and hostility against a particular race or races, and belief in the superiority of your own race.

Couldn't stand to read the entire thread- but everything that I did read at HuffPo went back and forth about racism and who gets to define it and no specific about what Trump exactly said that was racist.

Pretty much gathered that blacks get to define it and everything Trump says is racist.

Is there a name for this category of woman? Yes, I know there are plenty of crude ones, but I mean the stereotype that she fits: ostentatiously dignified, humorless, faux-intellectuals, wrapped up in pretentiously "African" attire, whose every look, gesture, and ponderously orated word oozes condescension and the unstated challenge, "How dare you?"

"Nothing is as painful as watching an African attempt to wax philosophically."

It pays to be wary, and careful with your words. What is that internet law which says any comment correcting a spelling or grammatical error in another comment will itself contain a similar error of its own?

By making these simple, not very egregious errors, you just give smug libtards another reason to worship their own self-regard.

How do you respond to someone that calls you a racist or other shaming word?

====================

The accepted way to respond to a personal or demographic insult, stereotype, or false accusation is to treat the remark as a weaponized event and to attack the speaker or writer as a bigot, hater, stereotyper, hater, and/or supremacist. It is certainly NOT appropriate to attack the bogus, insulting attack itself and try to disprove it or deflect it.

It was a supremacist claim by the woman speaker to decide she, and only she, has the right and authority to judge the intrinsic and extrinsic meaning or value of some statement she makes.

At Resisting Defamation, we learned this lesson from four or five different men named, coincidentally, Cohen who strictly followed the rule of "Attack The Speaker, Don't Deal With the Content Of The Smear." The diverse white Americans should know this by having been on the receiving end of thousands of personal attacks when their co-demographics have ventured nuanced, but forbidden, concepts. Attack back verbally at the speaker, not their utterances.

PS: Never use "racist" because that term has been managed such that it is too slippery to apply and offers idiots a way to deflect the attack. Not enough space to explain here.

There's a great video with Chuck Johnson dealing with a very emotional Hillary supporter. All Chuck did is tell the guy to f off a couple of times and it ended.

This whole idea of calling everything racist and sexist is the result of psychological warfare. That's why the mainstream media being destroyed by social media is so great. They can't control the narrative anymore and they know it.

Doesn't this privileged bitch (father university professor) have important work to do at home? Doesn't Nigeria have enough corruption, ethnic & religious strife to tackle before she lectures foreigners on their election? Of course back home she's likely to get gang raped and throat slit if she gets too uppity.

I assume she's going by the current academic definition of racism, that only whites can be because of very complex reasons. Go ask an SJW blog to explain it for you and I'm sure they will be more than happy to do so. (If you want to confound them, ask them to clarify whether Barbados blacks are racist against 'redleg' whites.)

Well, how do you like hanging around in our racist civilization, old girl? Kind of creepy with all the racist cars and racist houses and racist medicine, racist roads, racist indoor running water, racist cameras, racist TV, racist supermarkets, undemanding racist tenure at some comfy racist university, and all that, innit? Better go back home.

tublecane wrote:The main definition is prejudice and hostility against a particular race or races, and belief in the superiority of your own race.But east Asians are intellectually superior to Australian aborigines. However the east Asians are inferior at short distance sprinting speed to west Africans.

As for prejudice and hostility, everyone on planet Earth feels these emotions about other races, including me. I just don't see the point in beating around the bush anymore. Racism is normal, natural and healthy.

I also want to know what percentage of whites the population should be, according to the left. Are they satisfied if whites are 50% of the US population (we are already a global minority)? 30%? 5%? Maybe they want whites at 0? If they claim they don't care about race, then they won't mind if we remove all non-whites and become 100% white.

So Tyrrell can't be objective about what is racist because he is a white male but Trump is racist because he suggested that maybe a judge with Mexican ancestry who is in La Raza might not be objective? I guess logical consistency is racist too.

Protesting #feesmust fall and #rhodesmustfall black students at South Africa’s University of Cape Town (UCT) have demanded that the discipline of science be completely scrapped because it is a product of white people.

“Science as a whole is a product of Western modernity and the whole thing should be scratched off. Especially in Africa‚” a black “student” was recorded as saying.

Their lack of self-awareness is amazing. That video is an essay in why the alt-right exists.

They keep saying the Magic Words but the white man doesn't do his little dance any more. I mean, it works a little - but he's an old man and set in his habits. What about the young men? Why don't the Magic Words work? Just keep repeating The Words until it works like the nice people at university taught you. It's like a cargo cult.

During my academic time there was a big blow up about racism in our division. The professors who were generally about as lefty as you could imagine beleived in general concepts of racial equity and making up for past wrongs. However, when the diversity people got involved they would not tolerate it and went ballistic on them demanding them to specify how statements were racist and what the assumptions were. They were empiricist and while sympathetic to the cause they had no sympathy for the crazies running the diversity scams.

@44 And what is wrong with believing that white people should be the dominant group in a nation that was founded and built by white people. I also think Japanese should be dominant in Japan. What of it? Overall, the past few days of hysterics and irrational assertions just show that too many people just can't be reasoned with. It's their way or nothing. No more unrequited compromises from whites.

92. "Protesting #feesmust fall and #rhodesmustfall black students at South Africa’s University of Cape Town (UCT) have demanded that the discipline of science be completely scrapped because it is a product of white people.

“Science as a whole is a product of Western modernity and the whole thing should be scratched off. Especially in Africa‚” a black “student” was recorded as saying."

I had to laugh when he said "you people". Normally that is a trigger for blacks. Too bad not more of a reaction, that would have been funny. Aside from the shrill humor on display by both 'females' that is. But, as they should well know by now, we.don't.give.a.fuck!

"Could you recommend a title on the rise of political correctness and its germination in Marxism? Is there existing a withering critique of this urge to choke off speech?"

I won't speak for VD, but one of the foundational texts on the subject is the appendix on the theory of Newspeak in Orwell's 1984. It helps to read the whole book to see how it operates, but the appendix provides the theory in a rather concise manner.

Never give the term racist any serious reply at all. Ever. Just say that by calling someone a racist you are no different than someone 400 years ago called someone a witch. It is just a scare word to tell white people to shut up, As that African thing clearly said. Unless the person wants to talk about other things, declare the discussion ended because you do not talk with people who have no brains

I couldn't do it. I couldn't watch. I just don't care anymore what the left thinks or says. As what was said in a thread yesterday, "I don't debate those on the left." I have no interest in their fears, pains, word definitions, accusations, social reconstructs, goals, dreams or anything else. I simply don't care.

Calling them a pedo or a satanist is good stuff. But I wish there was also some rhetorical response that cut through to their mode of thought, that showed their whole philosophical approach was flawed and absurd.

4499 wrote:If he were a gamer shitlord, every phrase would've contained the adjective "cotton-pickin'" in it.

"Are you cotton-pickin' serious?!?"

"Shut your cotton-pickin' mouth!"

"Why, that's cotton-pickin' ridiculous!"

"I was talking to my cotton-pickin' black buddy the other day, and he said . . ."

And he would've left singing "Pick A Bale Of Cotton" on his way out.

This is absolutely great. You've got me grinning from ear to ear.

I think the guy who suggested an actual handwave accompanied by "whatever" just determined my reaction to the label "racist" if it's ever applied to me. I'd be tempted to say "Why yes, I am a racist," but I think the "whatever" is even more baffling to them.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

1. Yes, I believe there are differences among the races. This implies superior and inferior qualities. There is no right to dominate, but it would arise naturally as a result of superiority/inferiority.

Once you accept that two separate definitions make one, you proceed in the wrong direction.

The only way to prove Trump isn’t racis’ is to throw him into the river, like a witch, and if he swims, that’s proof positive for the racism. Why do you think blacks can’t swim, because they aren’t racist!

Just to make sure I understand you, female in purple: You say it's racist for Trump to say / imply that a Hispanic judge cannot be objective in a case that involves racism, AND you say the white guy cannot be allowed to define racism just because he's white.

Ummmm.... self-contradict much?

@115 - "If America and Europe and whites are so horribly racist, misogynist, and hate-filled, why are all non-white nations flooding them with people? A massive influx of people is only a western / White nation problem. Not the other way 'round. Why is that if we're so horrible?"

Could you recommend a title on the rise of political correctness and its germination in Marxism? Is there existing a withering critique of this urge to choke off speech?

Try "The Progressive Virus" or "A Look Inside The Playbook" by Dr. Anthony Napoleon. "A Look Inside The Playbook" lists "Marxist Operations Manual" right on the cover. It's under 120 pages and covers about 20 techniques Marxists use to alter our culture. I'm at the epilogue now where he covers how to fight back. I recommend all his books and the short papers he releases from time to time.

Eric the Red: Calling them a pedo or a satanist is good stuff. But I wish there was also some rhetorical response that cut through to their mode of thought, that showed their whole philosophical approach was flawed and absurd.

@ 115. Eric the Red November "Calling them a pedo or a satanist is good stuff. But I wish there was also some rhetorical response that cut through to their mode of thought, that showed their whole philosophical approach was flawed and absurd."

Tell them their hubris will catch up with them eventually. When they deny it show them this video and tell them this is how everyone views them.

@ ironsides: I think the guy who suggested an actual handwave accompanied by "whatever" just determined my reaction to the label "racist" if it's ever applied to me. I'd be tempted to say "Why yes, I am a racist," but I think the "whatever" is even more baffling to them.

There is a time to agree & amplify, and I do not think that is it. If you can make a joke out of a Nazi salute and "Heil Hitler!" then great but otherwise dismissiveness is likely most effective.

H.L. Mencken said somewhere -- when a ship is going down follow the rats. Hate to say it, but I think it is time to make a get away b4 its too late. The fate of the white race may be sealed and its time to swallow our pride. Was not racism invented by Trotsky as Talmudic devise to breakdown white cohesion?thanks,Jerry

If they say that my opinion can be dismissed because I am white, as this woman does, I might ask if it would be racist of me to dismiss her opinion expressly on the grounds that she is black. At that point the eagerness of these people to defend their racist double standard (blacks can't be racist because they don't have power, or whatever), just serves to expose them.

The position they are defending is PURELY racist: your opinion doesn't matter BECAUSE YOU ARE WHITE. No consideration of whether you are making sense or not. You are white and for THAT reason you are judged to be wrong.

Movement leftists easily accept this pure anti-white racism because they are not trying to make sense. They are trying to AVOID all reason and evidence that seems to militate against their presumptions, but the blatency of their racism will cost them the un-committeds, which is what matters.

Leftists have their own brand of so-called logic. You can't cut through it with dialectic, with more logic. Since their entire stance is subjective, they have had years to devise a mental construct that allows them to always be right, and you the white Christian traditional male to always be wrong. They absolutely do not recognize any inconsistency or hypocrisy on their part.

Only rhetoric will broach their defenses. Any attempt at logic automatically shifts you (almost unknowingly) into their frame of reference. You will attempt objective logic, while they are dancing around with subjective illogic.

As per VD, an attack with "pedophile" or "satanist" or "cannibal" or "baby fucker" or somesuch is the preferred way to go. (BTW, "colonialist" is also not bad).

As the alt-right thinks of more rhetorical responses, we need to share them among ourselves.

Racism = recognizing the reality that "some people" can not or will not abide by the standards of Western, i.e. White, Civilization

Discrimination = making decisions and taking action based on that recognition

Oppression = what "some people" experience when Western, i.e. White, Civilization tries to maintain its standards in the face of their incompetency, degeneracy, vulgarity, and criminality

If Civilization requires racism, discrimination, and oppression to survive then SO BE IT. The feelings of malcontent non-Whites are inconsequential. They have no business being in our civilization anyway.

@VDOK, here's a question. Most of the time, in response to "racist," "sexist," "xenophobic," etc., I'll mock them, or agree and amplify, or accuse them of some similar progressive sin, etc. The way I see it, their intent in calling you a racist is to induce an emotional response; make you fear that you are being excluded from the group. Whatever your response, it has to clearly convey "I don't care."

The one case where I sometimes respond with dialectic is if someone refers to a particular hatefact as "racist," rather than just using the term as a synonym for "heretic" or "blasphemer" in general terms. If I get the impression that the audience has potential (i.e. not merely committed leftists to be triggered), sometimes I'll just say "'Racist.' Does that mean "true?" Or "'false?'" What do you think? Any potential? Or waste of time?

@71 "It was a supremacist claim by the woman speaker to decide she, and only she, has the right and authority to judge the intrinsic and extrinsic meaning or value of some statement she makes."

Alas, poor, polite, (cuck-y?!) Tyrell! Is the following possible response all dialectic, or has it a bit of rhetoric too?

He should have turned to this negress and suggested that: in HER native language, she and her tribe may certainly define however they wish groups of vocal utterances that *sound* like words in another language. However, as long as she wishes to live in the White Western world and speak the White Western tongue, she needs to use the NATIVE speakers' definitions of White Western words. It is inappropriate for her to try to make up definitions that suit HER people and then try to force those foreign definitions onto White Westerners and their language!

Hmmmm. Too "racist"? Too fact-based? I'm still not sure I understand how to speak rhetoric....

"Read the dictionary. That's not racism by the dictionary definition. So, you're accepting their frame."

In actual usage, though, "racist" mostly serves to signify something like "heretic," or "blasphemer," or "witch," or perhaps "member of the other gang." If you even grant that any of these vague leftist terms have a fixed, objective meaning, and have any value as a pejorative, you're accepting their frame.

Returning to some semblance of the dictionary definition: The word "racist" did not exist until the 20th century, not because of any defect in our forefathers' vocabulary, but because the concept that valuing one's own people over a foreign tribe could somehow be a bad thing would have been nonsensical to them. They were right.

"It is problematic that people just like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot supported her. How many millions do you want executed in death camps, eh?"

Tyrrell couldn't carry this off but someone else could, when the blonde doesn't know who the K of C are just laugh and demand to see her legs. "You sure weren't hired for your education, what other assets did you bring to the interview?".

Not knowing who the Knights of Columbus are might be forgivable, as perhaps they don't operate in the UK, but, the bitch immediately framed the question as "are they another extremist group?" The hostility against the truth coming out is the problem, not so much the fact of their ignorance. Ignorance of the truth can be cured, but hatred of the truth, I don't see how.

@163Used to be BBC newsreaders had to know something about a topic. Someone blabbing about US politics should know more than "Rethuglicans == KKK == Rayciss". It'd be like an American blabbing about UK sport with no clue who Manchester United is.

When the judge came up, Tyrrell should have done his best Mexican accent and asked about "Laaa Raza Unida", The United Race in a manner of amused contempt.

This is all just rehash of VD's obvious point: don't bring dialectic to a rhetorical fight.

The ice cold Marxist arrogance of the Nigerian is worth remembering well. It would be amusing to question her about recent African history from the Biafra massacre to Mobuto, Mengisto, Mugabe, South Sudan, the DRC or even the descent of South Africa under Zuma. For all her condescending smug talk, she needs to be reminded that Africa is still a continent plagued by savagery where Blacks have no regard for each other or for any civilized norms. Tyrell spent 40 yrs playing nice w Liberals. Time to wakey & smell the alt right coffee.

I'm thinking that a lot of the reason that the Marxist Progressive communist totalitarian tyrants got as far as they have is because it's been hard for a normal human being to understand and perceive that anyone could be so evil and wicked and rotten and horrible and bat excrement crazy. Perhaps their "Proposition Nation" would have worked, but it cannot work when it's poisoned with such a toxic ideology. I should say, such a toxic stew of competing and contradictory ideologies which happen to express the divided house of the Prince of Darkness.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.